Laura Vague
LightNews LightNews
lavague.bsky.social
Laura Vague
@lavague.bsky.social
130 followers 91 following 26 posts
She/Her
Posts Replies Media Videos
lavague.bsky.social
The best!! 😍
June 20, 2025 at 7:56 PM
lavague.bsky.social
I’m a professional pet sitter - normally this is a super-busy time for me and I’ve got zero work for 3 weeks…none of my people are traveling 😾
May 6, 2025 at 11:21 PM
Reposted by Laura Vague
mjsdc.bsky.social
Judge Boasberg writes: "The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it."

Anything less would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.” storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court’s later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967). If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order. See id. at 314, 320. That foundational “rule of law” answers not just how this compliance inquiry can proceed, but why it must. See id. at 320. The rule “reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,” no matter how “exalted his station” or “righteous his motives.” Id. at 320–21. The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely “annul the judgments of the courts of the United States” would not just “destroy the rights acquired under those judgments”; it would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.” United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115, 136 (1809) (Marshall, C.J.). “So fatal a result must be deprecated by all.” Id.
April 16, 2025 at 4:09 PM
lavague.bsky.social
Whaaaat is that headline..? 🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️
April 16, 2025 at 4:46 PM
lavague.bsky.social
Here’s what I do about that…
March 29, 2025 at 6:35 PM
lavague.bsky.social
Dug out my old flip flops from his first term…who’d a thot I’d get to use em again?! 🤨
March 20, 2025 at 2:25 AM